A Review of the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork Methodology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 October 2005 Table 26 - Phase 2: Deal with switching requests Goal Specification Cue identification Expectancy Conceptual Model Uncertainty Information Situation Awareness Situation Assessment Options Stress Choice Analogy Obtain confirmation from NOC that planned isolation is still required. Approaching time for planned isolation. Switching phone rings throughout building. Airblast circuit breakers (accompanied by sirens) can be heard to operate remotely (more so in Barking 275 than Barking C 132). Yes – routine planned work according to fixed procedures. Wokingham have performed remote isolations already. Circuit configured ready for local isolation. Physical verification of apparatus always required (DBI – don’t believe it). Proceduralised information from NOC – circuit, location, time, actions required etc. Switching log. Switching log. Physical status of apparatus. Planning documentation. Visual or verbal information from substation personnel. Planning documentation used only occasionally Refusal of switching request. Additional conditions to switching request. Some time pressure. Yes – highly proceduralised anyway Yes – routine activity Table 27 - Phase 3: Perform Isolation Goal Specification Cue identification Expectancy Conceptual Model Uncertainty Information Situation Awareness Situation Assessment Options Stress Choice Analogy Inform NOC of isolation status Switching telephone. NOC operator answers NOC accepts. Manner in which circuit is now isolated. Form of procedures. No – possibly further instructions, possibly mismatches local situation and remote displays in NOC. Switching log. Verbal information from NOC. Switching log. Yes – all information used. No (raise or add on further requests etc. to the same call) No Yes – highly proceduralised Yes – frequently performed activity 73
HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 October 2005 Table 28 - Phase 4: Report back to NOC Goal Specification Cue identification Expectancy Conceptual Model Uncertainty Information Situation Awareness Situation Assessment Options Stress Choice Analogy Ensure it is safe to perform local isolation. Confirm circuits/equipment to be operated. Telecontrol displays/circuit loadings. Equipment labels. Equipment displays. Other temporary notices. Equipment configured according to planned circuit switching. Equipment will function correctly. Layout/type/characteristics of circuit. Circuit loadings/balance. Function of equipment. Will equipment physically work as expected (will something jam etc.). Other work being carried out by other parties (e.g. EDF). Switching log. Visual and verbal information from those undertaking the work. Physical information from apparatus and telecontrol displays. All information used Inform NOC that isolation cannot be performed/other aspects of switching instructions cannot be carried out. Some time pressure. Possibly some difficulties in operating or physically handling the equipment. Yes – proceduralised within equipment types. Occasional non-routine activities required to cope with unusual/unfamiliar equipment, or equipment not owned by NGT. Yes – often. Except in cases with unfamiliar equipment. Related Methods The CDM is an extension of the critical incident technique (Flanagan 1954). The CDM is also closely related to other cognitive task analysis (CTA) techniques, in that it uses probes to elicit data regarding task performance from participants. Other similar CTA techniques include ACTA (Militello and Hutton 2000) and cognitive walkthrough analysis (Polson et al 1992). Approximate training and application times Klein & Armstrong (2004) report that the training time associated with the CDM would be high. Experience in interviews with SME’s is required, and also a grasp of cognitive psychology. The application time for the CDM is medium. The CDM interview takes between 1 - 2 hours, and the transcription process takes approximately 1 – 2 hours. Reliability and validity Both intra and inter analyst reliability of the CDM approach is questionable. It is apparent that such an approach may elicit different data from similar incidents when applied by different analysts on separate participants. Klein & Armstrong (2004) suggests that there are also concerns associated with the reliability of the CDM due to evidence of memory degradation. 74
Page 1 and 2:
Analysing C4i Activity: A Review of
Page 3 and 4:
HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
Page 75: HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
Page 113: HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
show all

A Review of the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork Methodology

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?